You are here: / Criminal Law

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated defendant's guilty plea because, although the court told the defendant he could receive “jail time” if he violated the plea agreement, the defendant was not informed he could be sentenced to state prison:

The court improperly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The record, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that defendant lacked sufficient information about the potential scope of sentencing in the event he violated the plea agreement … . Although the court clearly told defendant that he was pleading guilty to a class D felony, reckless endangerment in the first degree, its repeated statements, over the course of multiple court appearances, that defendant's sentence would involve “jail” time, and its failure to clearly apprise defendant that he could receive a state prison sentence, and the potential maximum term thereof, if he violated the plea agreement, taken together, rendered his pleas unknowing and involuntary … . People v Renvill, 2017 NY Slip Op 05921, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))

,

EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to resume receiving workers’ compensation benefits when he left prison for offenses related to the sale of drugs. The employer argued claimant should be disqualified because he received benefits while he had unreported income from selling drugs. The Third Department found that the plea allocutions were not sufficient evidence that claimant received income from drug sales:

In support of its assertion that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1), the employer submitted the transcripts of the 2012 plea allocutions resulting in claimant’s convictions for a violation of probation, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. As a result of recording or transcription errors, the transcript of the Alford plea proceeding is, at times, indecipherable. In addition, both transcripts of the 2012 criminal convictions were insufficient to establish that claimant received income while receiving workers’ compensation benefits or that he otherwise concealed his work status. Further, the employer did not submit the certificate of conviction for claimant’s 2010 convictions or the transcript of that underlying plea allocution. Although we agree with the employer that the Board incorrectly analyzed the 2012 criminal proceedings, we do not find that these inaccuracies warrant reversal and remittal to the Board, given that the Board primarily found that there was insufficient evidence to find a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a … . Matter of Pompeo v Auction Direct USA LP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05910, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT)/CRIMINAL LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT)

DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, over a strong dissent, determined the denial of youthful offender status was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant lost both parents, dropped out of school after having been a successful student and admitted to college, became addicted to drugs, and was targeted and victimized by persons who moved into his home. He had never before committed a crime. He pled guilty to seven burglaries which took place in the space of two weeks:

Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. “[T]he decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” … . Upon our review of the record, we are unpersuaded that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application for youthful offender status … . In making its determination, County Court considered numerous mitigating circumstances, including, among other things, defendant’s youth, his lack of a criminal record or prior acts of violence, his cooperation with authorities, his familial history and his expressed remorse for his conduct … .. Nevertheless, based upon the seriousness of the charges for which defendant was convicted and the fact that he willingly participated in seven separate and distinct residential burglaries over a two-week period, we perceive no abuse of discretion in County Court’s ultimate decision to deny defendant youthful offender status … . Nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion that would warrant a reduction of his sentence … . People v Strong, 2017 NY Slip Op 05876, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)

NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the People did not demonstrate the two sexual offenses to which defendant pled guilty occurred at different times, therefore consecutive sentences should not have been imposed. The Third Department explained that only the accusatory instrument to which defendant pled (here a superior court information) and the plea allocution can be considered in this context.  To the extent that a prior ruling suggested admissions in a pre-sentence report and victim statements could be considered to determine the facts of the offenses, that ruling is no longer to be followed:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2), “sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” … . Thus, “to determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a court must first look to the statutory definitions of the crimes at issue to discern whether the actus reus elements overlap” … . “[E]ven if the statutory elements do overlap under either prong of the statute, the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the acts or omissions committed by [the] defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . * * *

… [B]oth counts in the superior court information alleged that the acts occurred during the same time frame (between July 1, 2012 and July 31, 2012), neither count contained allegations about the specific acts constituting the crime, and there is no bill of particulars narrowing the specific type of sexual contact or sexual conduct alleged under either count … . Likewise, the plea allocution did not include admissions or particularity as to the acts committed that qualify as sexual contact or oral sexual conduct … . Given that the term “sexual contact” is broad enough to include all forms of “oral sexual conduct” … , the actus reus element could be the same for both offenses, that is, the same act could satisfy both crimes. As no specific date and time for each crime were alleged in the superior court information or plea allocution, and neither included underlying facts or alleged acts that were separate and distinct, consecutive sentences were not authorized … . People v Mangarillo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05872, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT)/SENTENCING (NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT)

,

RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, over an extensive, two-justice, dissenting opinion, determined a report on the DNA evidence which connected the defendant to the burglary did not violate the Confrontation Clause and was properly admitted. The majority argued that the report contained only raw data that was not part of a law enforcement effort aimed at the defendant because the sources of the DNA which were analyzed were not known to the technicians conducting the procedures. Therefore the raw data was not testimonial evidence (which would violate the Confrontation Clause). The criminologist (Huyck) who testified came to conclusions (testimonial) about the sources of the tested DNA by comparing the (non-testimonial) raw data. The report generated by the criminologist, therefore, was admissible because she testified and was cross-examined. The dissenters argued that someone involved in collecting the raw data should have testified and been cross-examined about the testing procedures (measures taken to avoid contamination, etc.):

Huyck herself conducted an independent review of the raw data derived from the testing of the DNA material derived from both the physical evidence and from defendant’s person, and was not merely “functioning as a conduit for the conclusions of others” … . …[T]he expert witness, “testified that any conclusions or opinions she reached from the raw data . . . were her own” and were not merely conclusions of others with whom she agreed … . Upon her own examination of the machine-generated graphs and raw data in this case, Huyck concluded that the two DNA profiles were a match. Her conclusion, based upon her own “separate, independent and unbiased analysis of the raw data,” was reflected in the … laboratory report bearing her name as analyst as well as in her own testimony at trial … . … Huyck did not base her testimony “solely on the reports of the nontestifying analysts [which were then] admitted into evidence for their truth.” People v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 05799, 1st Dept 7-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/DNA (TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/DNA (TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/REPORTS (TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT.

The First Department determined defendant, who had pled guilty, was entitled to a hearing on whether the police had probable cause to arrest him. The defendant alleged he was arrested on October 12 at his home. The discovery provided by the People alleged defendant was arrested the following day at the police station. The People did not respond to defendant’s allegation he was arrested at a different time and place. Because the People did not explain the circumstances of defendant’s arrest, defendant’s allegations in the omnibus motion were sufficient to require a hearing. The appeal was held in abeyance pending the hearing:​

… [D]efendant’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause at his home on October 12, 2012, at which time “[h]e was not acting in an illegal or suspicious manner,” although conclusory, was sufficient to entitle him to a hearing on the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of any evidence derived therefrom. It is undisputed that the arrest, whether it occurred on October 12 or (as the People claim) on October 13, took place “at a time and place remote from the [crime] for which [defendant] was charged” … . The People … asserted that defendant was arrested around midday on October 13, at a police station, after giving statements at the same police station that morning and the previous night. Thus, at a minimum, defendant has raised a factual dispute concerning the time of his arrest. Further, the People provided defendant with no information at all as to how, by their account, he came to be at the police station in the first place, nor did they disclose the basis on which he first came to the attention of law enforcement in this investigation … . People v McUllin, 2017 NY Slip Op 05795, 1st Dept 7-25-17​

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/PROBABLE CAUSE (ARREST, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/SUPPRESSION (PROBABLE CAUSE , BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/HEARINGS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROBABLE CAUSE, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)

,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant raised the justification defense in this manslaughter case. Once the defense was raised, the People were required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s act was not justified. The Fourth Department held that the jury’s finding the defendant’s act was not justified was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he People were required to prove either that defendant lacked a subjective belief that her use of deadly physical force was necessary to protect herself against decedent’s use or imminent use of deadly physical force, or that “a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary”… . Although the jury found that the People met that burden, we conclude, upon our independent assessment of the proof… , that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded”… . Defendant’s statements at the scene and in her police interview evinced a belief that deadly force was necessary to protect her from decedent, and we conclude that the People did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that her belief was objectively unreasonable. Instead, the credible evidence established that decedent was in a drunken rage during a heated argument with defendant, that he had threatened “trouble” if the police came, that he had repeatedly forced open doors in the course of pursuing defendant through the apartment, that he was not deterred even when she armed herself with a knife, that he had cornered her in the bathroom and pulled her hair, and that he had grabbed her by the hair to prevent her from leaving the bathroom just before she stabbed him. Under those circumstances, we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that defendant lacked a reasonable belief that decedent was about to use deadly physical force against her, even though decedent was not armed … . In other words, this is not a case in which the force employed by defendant ” exceeded that which was necessary to defend [herself]’ ” … . People v Marchant, 2017 NY Slip Op 05918, 4th Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (MANSLAUGHTER,  THE JURY’S FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED 4TH DEPT)

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should have given the jury the accomplice-in-fact instruction concerning the need for corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice:

“A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22[1]). A witness in a criminal action is an accomplice if he or she “may reasonably be considered to have participated in . . . the offense charged or an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged”… . A witness who is a criminal facilitator is an accomplice for corroboration purposes … . The factual issue of whether a particular witness is an accomplice should be submitted to the jury if different inferences may reasonably be drawn from the proof regarding complicity … .

Here, different inferences may reasonably be drawn … as to whether the second eyewitness drove Gill and the shooter to the scene, with the knowledge that one or the other of them intended to use the gun. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide the jury with an accomplice-in-fact charge. The error was not harmless, because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming. It is possible that the jury, properly charged on whether to treat the second eyewitness as an accomplice, and, if so, how to consider his testimony, could have discounted his version of the events. In that case, it was for the jury to decide whether the remaining evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Riley, 2017 NY Slip Op 05755, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)

​

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing judge should not have vacated defendant’s guilty plea. Under the plea bargain defendant was promised an 18-year sentence. After trial he was sentenced to 50 years. Although defendant indicated he didn’t remember the underlying events because he was intoxicated, both he and his attorney objected when the judge vacated the plea:

“[I]n the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or trickery, courts have no inherent power to set aside a plea of guilty absent the defendant’s consent other than to correct their own mistakes” … . Moreover, a court may not vacate a plea over a defendant’s objection … .

Here, the People fail to identify, nor is there apparent, any error or mistake made by the Supreme Court in accepting the defendant’s plea. Nor is there any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or trickery presented on this record … .. The defendant’s statements to the probation department to the effect that he was intoxicated and did not remember what had occurred on the night of the shootings cannot be said to constitute consent on the part of the defendant to the vacatur of his plea of guilty and the reinstatement of his plea of not guilty … . Further, notwithstanding the court’s conclusion and the People’s assertion to the contrary, in response to the court’s questioning as to whether the defendant wished to proceed to trial and assert an intoxication defense, the defendant merely indicated that he had wished to do so in the past, not that he wished to withdraw the plea and go to trial now. Nor did the defendant unequivocally inform the court that he had been coerced into pleading guilty … . Instead, the record shows that, when the court stated that it would strike the plea and set the matter down for trial, the defendant and his attorney immediately protested, but the court overruled their objections and moved on. The court erred in vacating the plea over the defendant’s objections … . People v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 05748, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION)/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION)

,

INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined there was insufficient proof of defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon under an accessorial liability theory:

… [A]s for defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the conclusion that defendant was an accessory to Anderson or Bost [co-defendants] in their unlawful possession of weapons is against the weight of the evidence … . There was no proof presented during the trial that defendant ever personally possessed one of the handguns or in any way encouraged or intentionally aided Anderson or Bost in their possession of the handguns … .. Accordingly, as “there was no evidence that . . . defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided another individual to possess the firearm” … , we reverse defendant’s convictions of counts 3 and 4 of the indictment for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and dismiss said counts. People v Spencer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05631, 3rd Dept 7-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW (INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY 3RD DEPT)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy